DSR-PDX10 vs HVR-Z1U
 

Does anybody know how the 16:9 SD of the Z1U compares to the PDX10's?

I'm looking and looking but not concrete results...

Ignacio...Boyd...anybody?

Juan

it's supposed to be a NEW way for 16:9 with the Z1U, according to Sony. Be interesting to see what they mean.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ronald Ng : it's supposed to be a NEW way for 16:9 with the Z1U, according to Sony. Be interesting to see what they mean. -->>>

Yeah basically, I'd like to know if those HD CCDs' Z1U will allow for better low light performance on DV 16:9 mode than the PDX10's in DV 16:9 mode.

There is some info here, but not enough...

http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/sonyhdrfx1/compare.php

Gotta love:
2 cine gamma settings.
Total manual mode, with f-stops display
2 ND filters
Smooth zoom, non-perpetuating
Assignable functions

Btw, I'm not disregarding by any means the HDV capabilities.

Juani

I think there's no doubt at all that the Z1 will have better low light performance than the PDX10. Going by Sony's figures, the VX2100 is 1 lux, the VX2k is 2 lux, the Z1 is 3 lux and the PDX10 is 7 lux.

tom.

Also keep in mind that the Z1 will cost $3,000 more than the PDX-10....

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Also keep in mind that the Z1 will cost $3,000 more than the PDX-10.... -->>>

The better features justify the price. No question about that.

Tom, that means that Z1 is at least 3 lux, and if one follow the the PDX170/VX2100 logic then the Z1 is 2 lux. Just this 5 lux difference between the two, it's worth the "sacrifice".

Juani

I don't understand your logic Juan; I gave you Sony's official figures. Remember the PDX10 is half the weight of the Z1, half the size, and takes 37 mm filters and accessories. Compare those prices with 72 mm ones.

tom.

According to a friend who has the FX1E, the low light etc stats are as follows

VX2000E is 12db (2 stop) more sensitive in low light than FX1E

VX2100E is 15db (2.5 stop) more sensitive in low light than FX1E

Colour saturation in low light is marginally inferior to VX2x

FX1E is slightly worse in smear (from a naked 60 watt clear bulb) than VX2x

FX1E has better (thinner) sharpness halo effect than VX2x at default setting , but a wider range control of custom sharpness

FX1E has better chroma noise characteristic (blue northern sky) than VX2x

FX1E at full gain up is not pretty, maybe uprezzed VX2x may be better. (In other words blurring a FX1E at full gain up to get the same noise characteristic as an uprezzed VX2x will be worse)



In addition , the hypergain (+36db) on the Z1 is an attempt to bring the camera in line with the low light performance of the PD170. However you must realise that mpeg compression loathes noise and it is expected than a softening filter will be introduced to stop the picture becoming a complete mess.

Read hypergain +36db very much like you would read digital x240 zoom, something to be avoided.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I don't understand your logic Juan; I gave you Sony's official figures. Remember the PDX10 is half the weight of the Z1, half the size, and takes 37 mm filters and accessories. Compare those prices with 72 mm ones tom. -->>>

The logic, it's nothing more than I'm considering an upgrade to the Z1U from my beloved PDX10. Of course, it's more expensive but the versatility of having SD and HDV, more control, better lux rating and the afforementioned features. That's translates into more possibilities. In other words, to me, the investment is justified, at least on in paper. I'd need to see more testing.

Juani

Juan: my only point was that one should expect a $3,800 camera with 1/3" chips to be better than a $1,800 camera with 1/4.7" chips. I may very well find an FX-1 or Z-1 in my future as well, but I'll let you guys be the early adopters :-)

John: Those numbers - if true - are very interesting. They imply that there would be very little low light difference between the PDX-10 and FX-1. My own observations based on side by side tests with my PDX-10 and VX-2000 indicate a 2.5 f-stop difference. If we are both right, then the FX-1 and PDX-10 are only about a half stop apart. If the FX-1 responds poorly to added gain then there might be little if any practical difference between these cameras in a low light situation.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Juan: my only point was that one should expect a $3,800 camera with 1/3" chips to be better than a $1,800 camera with 1/4.7" chips. I may very well find an FX-1 or Z-1 in my future as well, but I'll let you guys be the early adopters :-) -->>>

C'mon Boyd, you're the one making the big dough with all these operas :-)

By now, your PDX10 has done its job, it's time for an upgrade.
But not the FX1, rather the Z1U. You should be the one leading us.

Seriously, those numbers sound to me a little bit subjective.
I want to see serious tests, regarding the SD (4:3 and 16:9) down conversion, earlier next year after the Z1U is out. The HDV tests will leave it for a different thread.

Juan

Ha, ha.... yeah right ;-)

Is there any reason to think that the Z1 will behave differently in terms of the image or low light response than the FX-1? Regarding the VX-2000 vs PDX-10, my comparison is based on shooting the same chart under the same lighting and the same distance at f 2.8 on the PDX-10 and f 6.8 on the VX-2000. Your mileage may vary...

I love my PDX10

But

I just got confirmation from B&H that my NEW HDR-FX1, along with an AT897 mic, and a few other bits and pieces, is on its way.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Sorry, sorry; my excitement got the better of me for a moment! Juan, in the very near future I will be in the position of being able to do serious comparisons between the PDX 10 and the FX1 – not the Z1U let me hasten to add, however, I suggest the differences between the FX1 and the Z1U will not be as significant as the differences between these new HD cameras and our beloved PDX10. I should add, however, that if this machine that is on its way is one half as good as it seems from the raw files I’ve seen; then folks, I may not have time to get technical…

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff :

John: Those numbers - if true - are very interesting. They imply that there would be very little low light difference between the PDX-10 and FX-1. My own observations based on side by side tests with my PDX-10 and VX-2000 indicate a 2.5 f-stop difference. If we are both right, then the FX-1 and PDX-10 are only about a half stop apart. If the FX-1 responds poorly to added gain then there might be little if any practical difference between these cameras in a low light situation. -->>>

Boyd, those figures are lifted from Ellens email, I will be in a position to confirm them shortly. One thing I find interesting is that the Sony Japan sites list the FX/Z as 6 lux but the USA sites list as 3 lux, I think the hypergain on the Z1 says it all really.

I think for editing purposes the PDX and the FX/Z in 16:9 DV mode should cut together quite nicely